30% overhead is often a function of team size, not methodology. A team of 30 is not likely to be agile in a meaningful sense, there are too many coordination vectors and communication channels.
And if those in a position to ask about the rest of the team aren't sold on agile to begin with, the odds of it working are inversely proportional to the odds of people just going through the motions while fearing for their jobs and polishing their resume for a year.
There were various sub-teams that had their own working areas and their own sprints, it wasn't one huge 'agile' team of 30.
> And if those in a position to ask about the rest of the team aren't sold on agile to begin with, the odds of it working are inversely proportional to the odds of ...
So we're agreed, it's not a silver bullet. It might work, it might not, and people pretty much have to be believers to get any benefit out of it.
Comments
30% overhead is often a function of team size, not methodology. A team of 30 is not likely to be agile in a meaningful sense, there are too many coordination vectors and communication channels.
And if those in a position to ask about the rest of the team aren't sold on agile to begin with, the odds of it working are inversely proportional to the odds of people just going through the motions while fearing for their jobs and polishing their resume for a year.
There were various sub-teams that had their own working areas and their own sprints, it wasn't one huge 'agile' team of 30.
So we're agreed, it's not a silver bullet. It might work, it might not, and people pretty much have to be believers to get any benefit out of it.
Is this starting to sound like a religion yet?
You pretty much have to be a believer in anything to get a benefit out of it...especially something that's challenging and requires discipline.